Podcast: God Squad: Love thy neighbor. No exceptions?



Here’s the scenario: You and four friends are deciding where to eat. Two want pizza. Two want sushi. Everyone turns to you. You have one vote, like everyone else, but yours decides dinner. Your vote has more power.
This fall, something like that is true for about 2.75% of eligible American voters. Just 7.3 million people out of 266 million eligible adults will have more power to decide the outcome of this year’s midterm elections than the rest of us. The difference from the friend group scenario is that these people with decisive power often don’t realize it. In fact, they may doubt whether they should even bother to vote.
A new technology aims to shed light on voting power in a novel way. U26.vote, a website that instantly reveals the power of a person’s vote, uses data science to determine the political, situational, and demographic factors that affect voting power, then uses an algorithm to translate each voter’s relative advantage into a score.
Action Tank, a company founded by serial tech entrepreneur Ben Bilbrough, developed the technology and partnered with Vote.org, the country's largest voter registration platform, to distribute the tool at scale.
U26.vote visitors discover the power of their vote by entering their ZIP code and birth year to see how they compare to the typical American voter. For voters looking for a reason to show up this fall, it could be a game changer.
Four factors determine a voter’s power.
Geography comes first: Of the 435 House districts, only a few dozen remain truly competitive, and in some states a competitive Senate race appears on the same ballot. Eligible voters in those districts have the most influence on the midterm outcome, so they see a score bump relative to how close their race(s) are projected to be.
Age comes next. Young voters are a large and growing share of the electorate, but they skip midterms at far higher rates than older voters, so each young voter who shows up counts for more. The size of each age group in the district, as well as their historic turnout rates, are the levers here.
A third factor is the redrawing of Congressional district maps. New district lines mean unfamiliar candidates and confusion about voting mechanics, which can depress turnout and make every ballot cast in the affected areas more important.
Finally, consider the risk of voter suppression. In contested districts, where fear or misinformation about voting rules is more likely to keep many people home, every ballot cast carries greater relative weight.
In some states, like New York, which allows people who own multiple homes to choose where to vote, the tool makes comparison easier by providing data. College students can also compare their score at home with their score at school. Voting rules for students vary by state, but Vote.org's tools help voters check what applies to them.
Across the country, U26.vote reveals striking disparities in voting power. A Baby Boomer in California's 11th District scores 1.0x – this reliable voter type in an uncontested race receives the baseline score that everyone earns simply by living in a democracy. But in Ohio's 9th District, where a race is projected to be decided by about one percentage point in a state with a competitive Senate contest, a Gen Z voter has a power score of 26.2x - a score the site reveals to be in the top 0.2% nationally.
A voter discovers their vote has real power. Now what?
Billions will be spent this fall persuading Americans to vote for one candidate or another, nearly all of it aimed at people who vote reliably. Young voters, who are less likely to turn out in midterms, tend to be under-targeted in these campaigns, so those messages don’t reach them. To fill that information gap for voters who believe their vote has power but aren’t sure how to use it, U26.vote offers a short seven-question survey on current high-profile topics like clean energy, healthcare, and ICE deportations that maps users to the candidates on their ballot who best align with their values.
Every vote counts, and most Americans already know it. Millions turn out in every election, across every district, because they care about the races on their ballot, the measures that shape their communities, and the simple idea that democracy works best when everyone takes part. That commitment is the foundation of our democracy, wherever a voter lives.
But not everyone feels the same pull to the polls, especially in the midterms, as evidenced by chronically low turnout. A tool like U26.vote unlocks a different incentive or motivation for a different kind of voter, and that’s what Vote.org and Action Tank are leaning into.
David Nevins is the publisher of The Fulcrum and co-founder and board chairman of the Bridge Alliance Education Fund.

NewYorkTlan 2026, a vibrant transnational festival that celebrates the cultural contributions of indigenous immigrants and Native Americans in New York City.
What good are rights if the people who hold them cannot understand how to exercise them?
Imagine seeking refuge in a strange land, far from everything you know, and being handed papers in a language far from your own. State officials loom overhead as they urge you to sign your name on a dotted line. You can't quite make out what they’re saying, but you get the impression that signing your name will end this experience.
You sign the papers without fully understanding what they mean. Handcuffs are tightened around your wrist. And there is nothing your loved ones can do to stop your deportation.
According to Mary Jose Prudente, co-founder of the Colibrí Interpreters Collective, this is a common story among some families navigating immigration proceedings. Immigrants would sign deportation orders without knowing how the documents in front of them could change the course of their lives. When she and others later tried to help, there was little they could do to reverse what had happened.
This underscores a fundamental flaw in American civil life: How can people be expected to consent to consequential decisions about their livelihood without fully understanding the language in which those decisions are suggested?
Prudente’s work as an indigenous interpreter is rooted in mending this flaw through linguistic justice — the principle that all people should have equitable access to communication in a language they know best. She believes access to a system is not the same as understanding it.
“Estás en un cárcel abajo de los Estado Unidos,” said Prudente, “Esto es la consecuencia de no tener una intérprete.” (“You’re in a prison under the United States. That’s the consequence of not having an interpreter.”)
This is even harder for Indigenous migrants who are often only given Spanish as an alternative, if any. Something Prudente knows from personal experience.
Prudente immigrated to the United States at 13 from Guerrero, Mexico. She’s from one of Mexico’s indigenous communities known as the Ñuu Savi (or Mixtec), speaking Tu’un Savi as her native language.
After suffering much discrimination from employers, Prudente learned early on that language would be a barrier that kept her from defending her rights. Most interpreters and translations were offered in Spanish. And while Prudente had grown up bilingual, many people from her community did not have that same privilege.
Having seen the ways her people were discriminated against in the U.S., Prudente began to act as an interpreter for other Tu’un Savi-speaking migrants. She’d been volunteering her interpretation services to different organizations when she connected with the Red de Pueblos Nacionales — a network of indigenous communities in New York City who advocate for the rights of Indigenous migrants.
The network allowed her to work as a formal interpreter. In doing so, she realized there was a gap in American civil rights that left Indigenous people like herself vulnerable to harm in the United States.
In 2021, Prudente helped establish the Colibrí Interpreters Collective – the first indigenous interpreters collective in New York City. The collective advocates for linguistic justice in every aspect of American life. They provide interpretations for academic, medical, and legal proceedings for nine different indigenous languages.
Their clients range from individuals to entire government bodies such as the Mayor's Office of Immigrant Affairs and the Federal Court system. Most notably, they’ve assisted in translating during immigration proceedings for children who arrived in the United States without a parent.
Colibrí's work comes at a time when language access is scrutinized across the United States. In 2025, President Donald Trump signed an executive order that revoked policy aimed at improving access for people with limited English proficiency by declaring English as the official language of the United States. While federal agencies that have previously offered translators may continue, some people are concerned that support for immigrants navigating public institutions could quickly disappear. For indigenous migrants, Colibiri fills a gap in the system where immigrants from south of the border would often be treated as monolith.
Despite noncitizens having a right to a competent interpreter, Indigenous Americans from communities outside of the U.S. are not politically or legally recognized as such. Instead, they are viewed as citizens of their respective home countries which limits access to Native American recognition and rights.
Prudente hopes that the Colibrí Interpreters Collective can serve as a resource for Indigenous people navigating the immigration system while they wait for the government to provide an accessible pathway to citizenship.
“No es culpa de nosotros como seres humanos porque la migración era algo para siempre,” said Prudente. (“It’s not our fault as human beings because migration has existed forever.”)
Alejo Cruz, a student at CUNY's Craig Newmark Graduate School of Journalism, is a fall fellow at The Fulcrum.

Texas Democratic Senate candidate James Talarico speaks at an American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations rally at The Texas Gulf Coast Labor Federation on October 21, 2026 in Houston, Texas. As a former union member, Talarico spoke of the fight between billionaires and workers.
Texas is in the middle of one of its most contentious and heated elections in modern history. The question that lingers in the national press is, will the state flip to Democrats in the major statewide contests for US Senate and governor?
But the voters who will decide this question aren’t Republicans. They aren’t Democrats. As previously predicted on IVN, it will most likely be independent voters—if they turn out.
- YouTube youtu.be
According to a new poll from the University of Houston Hobby School, 60% of independent voters support Democratic US Senate nominee James Talarico, while 32% support his Republican opponent, state Attorney General Ken Paxton.
Overall, Talarico narrowly leads Paxton, 48% to 46%.
In the governor’s race, Democratic nominee Gina Hinojosa does not poll as high among independents as Talarico, but they still prefer her to Republican Gov. Greg Abbott, 55% to 36%.
Overall, Abbott leads Hinojosa 49% to 46%. Both are tight races.
“High gas and diesel prices, inflation at the grocery store and an unpopular war all have created headwinds for Republicans. More than half of Texans say they have an unfavorable opinion of President Trump, just two years after he carried the state by more than 13 points,” said Renée Cross, executive director of the Hobby School.
“But it has been more than 30 years since a Democrat was elected to statewide office in Texas, and many voters remain loyal to the Republican Party.”
Here’s why this matters.
According to VoterCount.ai, which pulls from the L2 Data voter file, there are more than 2.7 million registered voters in Texas (just over 15% of the electorate) that identify as independent, compared to 48.6% that are Democrat and 36.2% that are Republican.
When IVN first reported that L2's figures showed more Democrats in Texas than Republicans in August 2025, the comments and emails stacked up from people accusing L2 and the Independent Voter Project, a co-publisher of IVN, of making up the numbers.
They pointed out—correctly—that Texas does not register voters by party. But L2 explained its methodology (which has set an industry standard for data modeling) and noted that a modeled electorate doesn’t always represent the electorate that shows up to vote.
While people may argue over these numbers, a bigger question was raised in IVN’s original reporting: Has Texas been a purple state this whole time? Or, at least in the last few election cycles.
Look at how close statewide contests have been recently, especially in US Senate contests. US Sen. Ted Cruz won re-election with 53% of the vote in 2024. US Sen. John Cornyn won re-election with the same percentage in 2020.
That is not an overwhelming majority. These races are getting tighter and tighter.
Now, look at the polling from 2024. According to CBS Austin, the same pollster that shows Talarico leading among independents this year found that Ted Cruz had more support from independent voters compared to his opponent in the last cycle, 48% to 42%.
Republican candidates had strong support from independent and Latino voters in 2024. What if it wasn’t Republicans who ensured Cruz kept his seat, but independents?
Now, these voting blocs—independents and Latinos—favor the statewide Democratic candidates, especially Talarico, who already showed what impact courting independents can have in the March primaries.
Talarico received more than 1.2 million votes in the Democratic primary. He beat US Rep. Jasmine Crockett, who received over a million votes. It is the first time since the 90s that turnout in a non-presidential statewide Democratic primary exceeded Republican turnout.
Turnout in the 2020 Democratic presidential primary was higher than the Republican primary, but President Donald Trump still won the state.
In the IVN analysis following the primary, it was noted that the way voters turned out had a few possible implications:
It could also be a combination of some or all of the above.
It is important to note that Talarico didn’t just campaign for Democrats. He reached out to independents as well, which seems to have paid off. The last public survey before the primary election showed his support among these voters at 62% compared to Crockett’s 35%.
Independent voters are allowed to participate in the state’s public primary elections. They can choose between a Republican and Democratic ballot. And Talarico won.
Now the question is, will his continued favorability among independent voters turn into votes in November? Could observers see the same in the governor’s race? Only time will tell. However, one thing is clear:
Independent voters are now impossible to ignore in the Lone Star State.
Are Independent Voters About to Flip Texas? is republished as part of The Fulcrum’s partnership with IVN and the Latino News Network to expand voter‑first journalism and strengthen public‑centered coverage of democracy.

AI chatbots are always guessing, even when they sound sure. Experts and Claude itself explain the AI trust gap, bias and why to check sources.
In all the debates about human and machine intelligence, one thing has become clear: We humans love to talk about AI. We’ve speculated whether AI will create or eliminate jobs, revolutionize or destroy science, comfort or torment us, entertain us brilliantly or rot our brains, or some combination of all these things. But amid the noise, we may have paid too little attention to a subtler impact: how AI is disrupting our relationship to information and making it harder to know what to believe.
The problem isn’t just deepfakes, the malicious manipulation of images, video, and audio. Even benign, well-intentioned AI applications can be profoundly misleading. The nature of the large language models that power chatbots means that they are always guessing, however confident they seem. How can we use AI to produce reliable information that improves public discourse rather than distorting it?
To explore this dilemma, I moderated a webinar on Trust in Information in the Age of AI, co-sponsored by NAPA, CODE, and the Bridge Alliance, with four leaders in the field: Richard Coffin of USAFacts, Professor Renée Cummings of the University of Virginia, Meghan Herbst of WIRED, and Dr. Alan Shark of NAPA and George Mason University. I also interviewed Claude (Opus 5.5 Extra), which assessed its own limitations and offered some useful advice.
The human experts and the machine intelligence agreed on several points.
A significant AI trust gap exists. Several surveys show that more Americans use AI, but few trust its results. However, many of us still have no firm opinion on AI, suggesting that trust in AI will depend on how it performs in the future.
Our skepticism is justified: AI often gets things wrong. Large language models don’t actually “know” anything – they answer queries based on patterns they deduce from the data they’ve been trained on. While accuracy rates depend on the task and how you measure success, rough estimates hold that chatbots make errors about half the time. The general consensus is that these AI hallucinations can be reduced but may be impossible to eliminate.
AI is often biased in ways that can be hard to detect. Algorithmic bias has been a concern for years, long before today’s chatbots were developed. Because AI is trained on historical data, it can reinforce old biases about gender, race, or ethnicity in hiring, criminal justice, and other areas. This can be a serious issue in any AI application used for public policy.
AI doesn’t quite know how to use government data. Chatbots often rely on secondary sources even when more reliable primary government data is available. The problem stems from the fact that much government data isn't “AI-ready,” and AI models aren't designed to go to government sources first, even when they are fit for use.
AI’s impact on information needs regulation. The debate over AI regulation has focused on the big picture: the need for guardrails to ensure AI doesn't turn on or even destroy humanity. While that priority is hard to argue with, we also need regulations to prevent AI from misleading or misinforming us. The European Union now requires a watermark on images or text produced by AI. In the U.S., several states are moving to prevent bias in public uses of the technology.
AI may offer real benefits for all kinds of human endeavors, but its flaws remind us to treat the technology with caution and care. This is especially true for using AI in public policy and decision-making, where poorly informed plans can have major repercussions.
For now, the best advice is to use AI with an awareness of its shortcomings, don’t put human judgment aside, and ask for and review your chatbot’s sources. As Claude said about our interview at the end: “If your readers take away one habit from it, I hope it’s checking the sources I’ve cited rather than taking my word for any of this.”
You can watch the full video of the webinar “Trust in Information in the Age of AI” on YouTube at: https://napawash.org/event/napa-technology-leaders...
Joel Gurin is the president and founder of the Center for Open Data Enterprise.